More Active Posts
Front Page
Deaf couple wants deaf baby
 |
 26 Comments |
Here’s a twist on the controversy surrounding genetic testing of embryos: A deaf couple wants the right to use the screening process to choose a deaf baby.
The couple have become icons in a deaf movement which sees this impairment not as a disability but as the key to a rich culture which has its own language, history and traditions: a world deaf parents would naturally want to share with any offspring.
Moreover, they argue that to prefer a hearing embryo over a deaf one is tantamount to discrimination.
Although the original wording of the U.K.’s Human Embryology and Fertilisation Bill would have prevented Paula Garfield and Tomato Lichy from intentionally choosing an embryo with the abnormality, a proposed amendment would give them that right. Lichy believes that “being deaf is not about being disabled,” but critics argue that “deliberately bringing a child with a disability into the world when one without could be born verges on the morally repugnant.”
What’s your take: Should this couple be allowed to choose a deaf embryo, or is doing so morally repugnant?
 |
Topic: WorldMagBlog |  |
Email a friend |
 |
Keywords: |  |
RSS 2.0 |
 |
Both comments and pings are currently closed. |  |
Share this: |
Reporters? choice
It doesn’t verge on the morally repugnant. It is morally repugnant. It’s cruel and it’s selfish. It’s denying someone a better life just because the don’t have that ability. Would they chooose an embryo where the child would have no arms or legs? Make your political points some other way. The child here can’t speak for itself, the state shouldn’t go along with this.
This should not be allowed. Even though I went through infertility treatment to have Chloe I took the one I got. You just can’t say, ” I want a baby. Whoops, You sent me the wrong one.”
I’m with NJL, repugnant and cruel.
This line just blows my mind-”Moreover, they argue that to prefer a hearing embryo over a deaf one is tantamount to discrimination.”
Well aren’t they discriminating against hearing embryos?
Morally repugnant. (That was easy!)
I think making any genetic choices at all is repugnant. The only one qualified to make these choices is God and children are a gift from God.
Legally anything goes as law does not follow Biblical principal as a rule. I don’t see being deaf or hearing or blind or seeing, black, white blue eyed or brown, as good or bad…just the cards God dealt you, if we choose traits for our children then will we also be able to explain as well as God will why we made the choices we did? I am not so confident.
MAGWAH is right. Choosing only a deaf baby or choosing only a hearing baby are both wrong.
Paula’s right. It’s like somebody hit the Easy Button.
MAGWAH is also right. Any such choice is wrong. Personally, I’d like to have had a son with a 95mph fast ball, but I’m happier with what I got than I’d be with what I’d designed.
I’m anxiously awaiting the first poster to pretend this is some sort of quandary. I think I know who it’ll be….
These parents are not onlyhearing challenged, repugnant and cruel but their thought processes displayed would lead one to believe that they should not be allowed to breed at all since they are obviously mentally process challenged as well.
I think I read or watched a fiction story about this scenario once…
The whole “deaf culture” thing is one of the most bizarre things I’ve ever come in contact with; it has all the hallmarks of the various “oppressed minority” groups that we’re all familiar with, but with the twist that they have the choice of almost completely removing themselves from hearing society and function self-sufficiently as a sub-culture. But the discrimination and bile towards those who are hearing-impaired but choose to live in the hearing world is staggering.
My brother is profoundly deaf, and doesn’t know a lick of sign-language. On a few occassions, I’ve watched him interact with someone from the deaf community in public, it’s been terribly awkward and usually leaves the other deaf person upset at my brother for his choices.
It’s one of the most close-minded minority groups I’ve ever been around.
The desire for a deaf child really stems from a fear that a hearing child would be a part of another world and unable to communicate with his parents. Deaf people look to their culture for security, they love it and don’t want to be a part of the hearing culture. Hearing children with deaf parents are often disrespectful and disobedient and despise the culture their parents are a part of.
I do NOT believe it is right to “choose” your baby based on disabilities or lack thereof. It is wrong, but it is a result of our sinful nature which desires whatever is most comfortable.
Why is a hearing baby better than a deaf baby?
If couples can already choose to only implant embryos that are male or female, why shouldn’t Deaf parents choose to have a Deaf baby?
I agree with most here. Having a child is not like buying a car.
But it would be fascinating to have a doctor discribe how they identify a deaf embryo.
It only makes sense that if we’re going to regard our children as reproductive projects there should be some quality control.
I’m wondering if ILoveCoffee is the person Stubob was referring to.
That said, we have five senses. Having only four is a physical deficiency. If you’re going to choose embryos, not something I am endorsing in any way, why would you deliberately choose one that is defective? And please don’t tell me that hearing-impaired people or blind people are not physically defective. They are. Just as I have a defective knee cap.
Normal parents want their child to hear the car coming down the street so that the kid isn’t hit. They want their child to have every opportunity. These parents don’t want what’s best for their child. I am not saying that we should get rid of deaf people because they are deaf, or blind people because they are blind, but to deny a child any one of the five senses deliberately denies that child a fundamental part of life. It’s cruel, and if someone can’t see that that is cruel, deaf or not, there is something very, very fundamentally wrong with that person. Heaven forbid that such people get legislative or judicial power. And heaven forbid that a doctor would go along with such a despicable act.
They could always adopt. There are lots of deaf children in the world who could be adopted. I agree with NJLawyer, there are better ways to make political points.
Eh?
I see where deaf parents might not have the connection to a hearing baby that they would to one who understood their world. And usually hearing children are very difficult for deaf parents to raise and discipline properly.
That said, parents shouldn’t choose one way or another. It’s discrimination either way, and either way selfish.
There are plenty of kids getting hit by a car because they have Ipods in their ears and don’t hear a car coming.
Your notion is that to be missing one of the five senses somehow diminishes your quality of life.
The Deaf live full lives. They hold jobs, fall in love, and contribute to society.
But it would be fascinating to have a doctor discribe how they identify a deaf embryo.
I’m not sure it can be done, so I’ll await a description with you.
So far, the poster I had in mind hasn’t shown. He/she hasn’t been anywhere today. Bummer.
A deaf embryo? I wasn’t aware that any babies at the embryonic stage have the capacity to hear.
Seriously, though, the problem isn’t just that they want to choose a “deaf embryo,” (or any other particular characteristics) but the idea of them producing multiple embryos from which to choose. Once one accepts the notion that a couple can fertilize multiple eggs with the intention of disposing of some of them, then we’ve dispensed with the right to place moral limits on the basis on which they choose one embryo over another.
ILoveCoffee, you can’t be for real?!
If I lose my sight today, my life may be full, but it’s not as good as it could be. I am deprived of everything I would be able to see. So, too, is it with a deaf child. Why would you deprive another human being of the ability to hear? This doesn’t make sense.
If this is morally acceptable, then it should be morally acceptable simply to get pregnant…and have a doctor perform surgery in utero (or shortly afterward) to make the child deaf. No, we don’t purposely deprive our children of one or more of their senses! They really should consider adoption.
This story has been around for many years, though–is this still the same couple?
The point that anyone can choose their baby’s physical abilities, gender, etc. seems a lot like Nazi Germany choosing a superior race. Not the way God intended.
Cheryl D: It is not the same couple. The couple you are thinking of, two women, became famous in 2002 for their decision to elect a deaf sperm donor. It’s not the same as genetic selection; more like stacking the deck rather than blatantly looking at cards.
The reason for this new focus is because of the UK’s Human Embryology and Fertilisation Bill, which is intended to force parents to choose a hearing embryo over a deaf embryo, assuming one is available.
ROBHAYS..Deafies are only as closed minded as the hearing culture.
No we cannot remove ourselves completely from the hearing world, nor can we function without it.
The discrimination and bile from the deaf world is no different to the discrimination and bile emnating from people who don’t understand the issue, such as this blog topic, but still feel compelled to pass judgement like they are here..morally repugant..
I won’t bother explaining what this issue is really about.. you can visit the site www.stopeugenics.org.. and get some accurate info.. instead of responding to uninformed blog posts such as this!